In the dynamic landscape of test automation, Leapwork and Flank emerge as distinctive tools designed to streamline testing processes. Leapwork is a no-code, AI-powered test automation platform that emphasizes ease of use for non-technical users, supporting web, Android, and iOS applications.
On the other hand, Flank is an open-source test runner, appealing to those with technical expertise through YAML and gcloud CLI, catering exclusively to Android and iOS. Both tools offer report generation, but they differ in their approach to coding requirements and platform integration. This comparison will clarify their unique features and help you choose the right tool for your testing needs.
Latest update: 1/9/2024, 5:35:10 PM
We do not guarantee the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information presented on our website. This includes prices, product specifications, and availability, which are subject to change. The reviews on this site are collected from g2.com and crozdesk.com and summarized by us.
Feature comparison of Leapwork and Flank
|Uses Computer Vision
|Ease Of Use
|very easy to learn
|requires expert technical knowledge
|Is Open Source
– Comprehensive data storage abilities without being locked into a single solution.
– Excellent support with timely solutions upon request.
– Ease of use in creating subflows for reusable tasks, which benefits non-technical testers.
– Enables manual testers to create automation without extensive coding knowledge.
– GUI-based platform that is easy to learn with a supportive knowledge base.
– No technical prerequisites required for use.
– In-depth strategy editor that supports web, desktop, and API automation.
– Seamless integration of test cases involving both desktop and web applications.
– Video export feature of executed test cases for documentation and training.
– Excellent debugging functionality, including live video execution and video recording.
– Minor user interface issues, such as watermarks not disappearing when typing.
– Lack of check-in control in the Platform version compared to the Enterprise version.
– Reporting features could be enhanced, such as email reports and dashboard improvements.
– Identifying some web elements can be counterintuitive and may require advanced knowledge.
– Mobile automation not built-in; reliance on third-party providers or tools is necessary.
– Test execution can be slow when using remote agents.
– Limited functionality for executing sub-flows compared to main flows.
– Data-driven test automation from Excel is not dynamic and could be improved.
– Limited Excel integration with only basic Read and Write blocks available.
– Still an on-premises tool; could benefit from being cloud-based with automated backups and disaster recovery.
Pricing Overview of Leapwork and Flank
Leapwork Pricing Description
Leapwork Test Automation adopts a customizable pricing model that aims to serve a variety of business sizes and needs. Rather than offering set pricing tiers, Leapwork emphasizes a personalized approach, inviting potential customers to engage in a discussion to receive a tailored quote. This method ensures that organizations pay for a service structure that is closely aligned with their specific requirements, team structure, and business goals. The advantage of this model is its flexibility and adaptability, catering to unique scenarios that may not fit into standardized pricing categories.
Flank Pricing Description
Flank, on the other hand, stands at the opposite end of the spectrum as it is presented as free open-source software. The absence of a price tag indicates that the tool can be freely accessed, modified, and distributed by anyone, which makes it an appealing option for individuals, startups, and companies with limited budgets. The open-source nature of Flank allows for community contributions to the codebase and can potentially lead to a diverse ecosystem of features and integrations driven by its user community.
Comparing Pricing Models
When comparing the pricing models of Leapwork and Flank, several key differences and commonalities emerge:
- Accessibility: Both Leapwork and Flank are accessible to a wide range of users. While Leapwork requires direct communication to obtain pricing, it is still available to businesses of all sizes. Similarly, Flank is accessible to anyone due to its open-source nature.
- Customization: Leapwork offers customization in terms of pricing, while Flank allows customization in terms of the software itself, as users can modify the source code to suit their needs.
- Cost: The most apparent difference is the cost. Leapwork operates on a quote-based pricing model, which likely involves a financial commitment tailored to the user’s requirements. Flank is free, eliminating the barrier of cost entirely.
- Support and Services: With Leapwork’s model, customers can expect a certain level of support and professional services included in their personalized quote. In contrast, Flank, being open-source, may rely on community support, and professional services would typically be separate or self-managed.
- License Model: Leapwork presumably offers a proprietary license as part of its pricing, which would come with certain restrictions and conditions. Flank’s open-source license permits users to modify and share the software freely, which encourages innovation and collaboration.
- Scalability: While Leapwork’s pricing is likely to scale with the size and needs of the business, Flank’s cost does not change regardless of the scale of usage, making it potentially more scalable from a financial perspective.
In summary, the key differences between Leapwork and Flank’s pricing models revolve around cost, support, licensing, and scalability. Leapwork’s personalized pricing approach is designed to match the specific needs of a business, which could be beneficial for organizations looking for a tailored solution with professional support. Flank, being open-source and free, offers a cost-effective and flexible option for those willing to forgo direct vendor support and leverage the community for maintenance and enhancements. Each model has its merits and will appeal to different types of users based on their individual needs and resources.